Adunaphel as hazard event only targets current company

The place where the NetRep and the rules wizards discuss upcoming rulings
Locked
zarathustra
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Take a look here.
Proposed Ruling wrote:Adunaphel (as a hazard short-event) can only target characters if they are in the company whose movement-hazard phase it is.
Last edited by zarathustra on Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.alfanos.org
Sauron
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:27 pm

CRF:
Hazards may only be played on a company whose movement/hazard phase is being resolved, or on the site they are moving to. Long-events and permanent-events may effect more than one company even though they are only played "on" one company.

CRF:
If a Nazgûl is tapped to become a short-event as printed on its card, it turns into a short-event upon declaration. At this point, the Nazgûl is a short-event just as if had been played as such from your hand.

So it's like a short event being played from your hand. So it must be played on a company who's M/H Phase it is.
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

You are talking of general rule, whereas question is whether some wording (namely "any one") may be considered as exception of this rule.

Argument was given from zarathustra, that exception may be considered as such, only if card's text cannot be readed within general rules.
In other words, if card's effect makes any sense (is usable) within general limits , ignore all "extras" like e.g. "any one". Otherwise respect it, like in case of Hoarmurath Unleashed, or Adunaphel The Ringwraith, or Tom Bombadil.

Contrargument is current, official interpretation of theThrall of The Voice.
This card allows play "instead normal character" any character with mind upto 6 (including agents).
Officially this card allows playing Orcs&Trolls, even if it does not say explicitly about Orcs&Trolls.
However it is possible because definition "any character with mind upto 6 (including agents)." repleaces definition of character that can be normally played by FW and Orcs&Trolls fits within that definition (as long as its mind is not greater than 6).
It would be (wrongly) ruled that Orcs&Trolls cannot be played with Thrall of The Voice (e.g. because it does not say explicitly, that it overrides that limitation). And even then this card would be still usable.

A target is always choosen by player that play card/effect within limitation stated by general rules and/or the card/effect. He may choose any one Elf character in company as target for New Moon, or any one character in company as target for Weariness of The Heart.
Why phrase "any one" is not present in texts of these cards? Why it is present in texts of some Nazgul cards? How these cards would be working without such text? Would not then player choose as target of its effects any one character in company?
Does this phrase means nothing or serve purpose redefinition of range of possible targets from "[any one] character in company" to "any one character [in play]"?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

I think the only reason that might lead us to confussion is the poor wording of some cards. Most of the nazgul texts cause problems due to poor wording. IMHO it's useless to go further into what exactly the card says, because it all will probably be up to different interpretations. We have had the same problems with cards like When you know more etc, IIRC.

In this case, I think the general rule that Brian exposed is the most solid reason we can rely on while making a ruling about this card. Also, unless it's completely necessary, it feels uncomfortable to change what's been playing during all these years of MECCG, and especially giving more power to a card that it's completely overpowered already.

My 2 cents.

Edit: I do agree 101% with this:
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. A card's text does override the rules, yes, but only if there is no way to interpret the card's text without overriding the rules. If there is a reading of the card that is consistent with the rules, then that ruling is preferred over any reading that is inconsistent with the rules.
We really need to aim to make things as clear as possible in a game that is pretty unclear by itself. We should avoid go changing things here and there, unless it's absolutely necessary (i.e. the previous ruling is wrong)

Our mission in the CoE rulings section is to state clear things, not to discuss rulings in public. www.meccg.net is for that, this should be an official answer to what people might want to know. NetRep boards is the place where we discuss official rulings, shouldn't it be?

I'm saying all this because I think we, as the NetRep team, should try to keep the rulings questions section a bit clearer, and only answer precise answers. If we do not know the answer yet because it needs the work from the NetRep team, then we're all free to express our opinions, but in the end we'd probably have to say something like "the netrep team is working on this and will give a precise answer soon". That will help people to understand the rules better. Even I find trouble to follow some of the discussions on these boards; especially since not every one is english-native speaker ;-)
User avatar
Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland

It would be more fair to say: "this is serial error present in texts of Nazgul cards. Read <any one character> as just <character>. It was overlooked by years, but now it is changed".
It is more fair than searching in rules for base, than would legitimate old, habitual style of using Adunaphel and Indur effects. I fear that such base does not exist.
Making errata is more consistent, than saying, from one hand, that some phrase exists and, from other hand, that the phrase is meaningless , so should be ignored, while in other cases (Hoarmurath Unleashed, Adunaphel The Ringwraith) it is meaningful and should be respected.
Something must be sacrificed. For me consistency of interpreting rules and card's texts is too high price.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.
User avatar
Manuel
Council Chairman
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:31 am

I'm pretty sure ICE didn't want Adunaphel tapping everyone at anytime. As I said, it's just a matter of poor wording, that as Mark proposed rules aims to, we should simply clarify. I agree with the proposal ruling.
User avatar
miguel
Ex NetRep
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Proposed Ruling wrote:Adunaphel (as a hazard short-event) can only target characters if they are in the company whose movement-hazard phase it is.
Aye.
Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

This has already been addressed in COE 10 and COE 48. Both affirm that you can only tap a character in the currently active company.
zarathustra
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Since this ruling has already been made, I will not put it in another digest.

Done :arrow: Locked 8)
http://www.alfanos.org
Locked

Return to “Rules and Rulings - NetRep Discussion Forum”